Address the slaughter
I am angry and in pain with what has taken place in El Paso, Dayton, and Gilroy recently, and with what has happened to our nation these past few years with all this senseless slaughter. I have followed the calls by "liberals" for more control over guns, ranging from outlawing them altogether or to aspects of certain guns such as high-capacity magazines. These calls have been met with derision and disdain by gun advocates who say that they need these to protect their families and to hunt.
Well, I have a few questions for you gun folks: Where were the gun advocates in El Paso, Dayton, and Gilroy? There must have been a few of you in the crowd or who lost loved ones. Why weren't you there with your guns? It's legal to carry loaded long weapons in Texas, so why weren't you armed and ready to protect your families?
A question for the NRA: What is your solution to this slaughter? I would love to hear a concrete suggestion from you.
I am not against the Second Amendment. I have no problem with pistols and hunting rifles. What appalls me is the ability of a person to kill and wound dozens in a single incident. We have to use what little common sense we have to find a way to keep weapons with these high-capacity magazines off the market. We may not stop the killing, but maybe, just maybe, we can slow it down! We need to elect people of conscience who are willing to risk it all (including NRA funding) to change our current laws and address this horrible situation.
Start with behavior
First, let me thank you for continuing to put the printed version of your newspaper on the rack.
Lives have been lost once again by the bad behavior of a few, and we immediately want to rewrite laws to restrict the law-abiding citizens. Always, the subject is guns, and second to that is mental health. No matter how you rewrite it, there is no way to predict which person suffering from mental illness will actually turn into an active killer. Even with today's supposed criteria, it is a dangerous thing to our individual freedoms to start trying to define someone's mental health as stable or not.
Instead, maybe we should be asking ourselves and our educational system if we have in place and in play the standards to be raising good, responsible, respectful citizens. Yes, it starts at home, but at this point that's been lost due to numerous influences. Now more than ever there must be a standard of moral behavior set in the public school system. To have self-discipline, one must be disciplined. Until we actively affirm good behavior and punish bad behavior, this will not change.
Our populace has multiplied, our influences have multiplied, our visibility has been multiplied ad nauseam.
If I could change one thing in the current situation, it would be that the media could only report on it for one day--the day of. After that, they should talk about the victims and the punishment of the perpetrators.
Finally, evil exists. Let's teach goodness and godliness. That any place in this country would allow satanists to erect a monument is insanity.
On punitive damages
I thought punitive damages were to deter bad behavior and thus punish those guilty. It should not make someone or some entity rich at the expense of the product user. It is like a lotto with all the rest of us paying the bill.
Why shouldn't the punitive damages go to the U.S. Treasury, thus benefiting us all? Maybe designate it to be used for debt reduction.
WILLIAM F. JEBB
While reading "The leftist lexicon" by Bradley Gitz, I noted some inaccuracies in his description of intersectionality theory.
This term was coined in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a civil rights activist and legal scholar, who wrote that traditional feminist ideas and anti-racist policies exclude black women because of the overlapping discrimination unique to them: "Because the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which black women are subordinated." This is the intended definition.
The term was later put in the dictionary to mean interconnected categorization of social categories, i.e., race, class and gender. Since then it has been adopted to mean just social justice and, hence, given an unintended connection to Marxism.
In an Oct. 23, 2018, article by Merrill Perlman, she says now it is used as "a label like 'liberal' or 'alt-right,' which can then be 'weaponized' in the polarity wars" (such as seen in Bradley Gitz's column), and becomes something to be either for or against.
In Perlman's article, she suggests that a journalist should not use this term without an explanation of its true meaning because they are probably looking for another term (unless they are trying purposefully to weaponize the word to create division). It has nothing to do with white, Christian males, although there is no dispute that white males and many others have perpetuated racism, sexism, class and gender division.
After reading Bradley Gitz's column on "The leftist lexicon," I was almost speechless. His seemingly humorous attempt at defining these "leftist" terms was actually a stellar example of the unwoke, cisgender, white privilege objectification that those who hold racist views project onto those of us who promote social justice in our wonderfully diverse U.S. society.
Was Gitz purposely trying to alienate every person who is working to create an equitable society for all people, or did he do that on accident? I have higher expectations for someone of his education and influence. A college class on multiculturalism might improve his understanding of the world around him and might help his students feel more validated as well.
Just a thought.
Said what was needed
Alexandra Gladin's letter in the Aug. 5 paper should not only be the letter of the month, I nominate it for letter of the year. Ms. Gladin, you say it well!
Editorial on 08/12/2019
Print Headline: Letters